D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[Hussar]

But this doesn't seem to make sense - why would a supernatural effect make an Elf age more than a Halfling more than a human?

Shhh. Gamism is okay when it's in line with grognard sensibilities.

 

[Bagpuss]

But this doesn't seem to make sense - why would a supernatural effect make an Elf age more than a Halfling more than a human?

It's a supernatural effect why can't it age you a percentage of your life span, rather than a number of years. Either makes as much sense as the other being supernatural in origin.

It's not like they are travelling close to the speed of life where we have scientific equations to calculate the time dilation.

 

[Bagpuss]

It isn't about the gameplay being light and casual. The line in the movie was uttered by a drill sergeant, for goodness sakes. He was neither light, nor casual. But, he knew that people had to work together.

I think he took it that way. Not everyone treats or enjoys RPGs as just a game, like a playing monopoly or checkers. I'm reminded of the saying from Bill Shankly which in his case was about football, but can be applied to anything someone is passionate about.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that."

Not everyone wants to "lighten up", or would enjoy it the same if they could. It's fine to be passionate about your hobby.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's a supernatural effect why can't it age you a percentage of your life span, rather than a number of years. Either makes as much sense as the other being supernatural in origin.

It certainly can, but I do not see anyone arguing along the same lines for hit point loss and ability point loss. Why are we making age loss the exception?

 

[KYRON45]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and reference a point @Vaalingrade made. We're arguing about the definition of fun and quibbling over what it means to agree or tolerate a particular rule. What are we even talking about really?

It would seem that some of us are trying to "win" an argument about what fun means.

 

[KYRON45]

But this doesn't seem to make sense - why would a supernatural effect make an Elf age more than a Halfling more than a human?

If it were my decision to make i would say that the aging is relative to both the species and the context of the scenario.
It would all depend on the affect you are looking for. If the PCs know about the affects of aging and the elf jumps in front of the human to save him...maybe the elf doesn't age so much. If the DM is looking for some kind of horror affect to warn the PCs of the danger of the situation....the elf ages relative to his life span.
Regardless....the game allows for ways to reverse the effects of everything anyway.

 

[AnotherGuy]

With our table, I generally make a house rule and then inform the table.
We then incorporate the new rule.
Sometimes an issue with the new house rule comes to the fore and we discuss it for a possible change. Input from everyone at the table is appreciated.

That is how we do it - and our campaign is almost 10 years, so none of this is at session 0.

Currently we have a player voicing their dissatisfaction with our initiative system (almost 2 years in). I too think it needs some refinement.
We will probably change that at some point in the near future and I'll get input from the table for this.

That is how it works for us - we are also a group of friends.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not sure where you are getting any of that. To me, Rule 0 is unchanged, but they've re-worded it to remind us to be empathetic and try to look at the situation from the point of view of the others at the table as well as our own. This just seems like good advice...kinda basic. I'm not sure where the pushback is coming from, or the notion that DMs are going to be forced into anything.

I fully concur with the new statement, and nobody forces me into nothin'.

We always have to assume that at least some people are viewing the book for the very first time. Experienced DMs are going to enforce rule 0 whatever the books say. At least those that view it as worthwhile. A new player wouldn't read that rule the same as Gygax's final paragraph in the DMG which is the source of rule 0 originally.

 

[Emerikol]

Indeed.

And yet whenever one brings up the idea of adding level drain, forced aging, and other similar major mechanical setbacks back into the game as possible "loss conditions" alongside death the responding chorus of "Noes, noes, that's not fun, not ever!" is loud, long, and persistent.

Not in my games but on these boards yes.

 

[Oofta]

I navigated there from DnDBeyond. T'was a winding path...


I agree with you that this "Rule 0" is evidently not part of core. The House Rules wording in the 2024 DMG implies that DM proposes rules changes, but ought not to impose them if their players do not like them.

As things stand, I feel like they'd have done better making the Pinebrook Rule 0 their template for the 2024 DMG House Rules. The resultant norming would have semed to me more fruitful.

I don't think many people would have an issue considering a house rule that sounded interesting just because someone else brought it up. They likely used the wording they did simply because the DM is the target audience. In games I've played it's usually been up to the DM whether or not they want allow house rules. On the other hand the rules for the intro set are quite limited and aimed at kids and has pretty limited scope. I don't think the end result is all that much different though.